Why Print using Mat Inks and Paper?

[Paul Roark]

Paul,

If you are replying to my previous posts, the paper I was referring to was Palo Duro Etching not Satin. It would be interesting to find out what the readings for the Etching actually are (or is it just marketing hype).

Sorry, I missed that.  I'll see if I can get a sample.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,

I'm not claiming miracle status, or anything else, for the RR offering.  Mainly asking if anybody has tried it, and given RR's description how can it be classified as a "matte" paper.  Regardless of the 0-0-0 patch measurement it's still quite surprising to find its black point given as L=2.

Richard Southworth

I know it's a year and half since we had this discussion, but with the passage of time comes additional information and insight that may help to elucidate previous perceptions. Having been through several profiling experiences that involve the creation of profiles using the M3 measurement condition (polarized light, done with a Barbieri spectrophotometer), I believe this is the explanation for the L*=2 maximum Black read from the profile using say ColorThink Pro as the profile analysis software. This does not mean the value of this Black would read as L*2 when reading the outcome on paper with an X-Rite spectrophotometer which is not M3 capable; results from the X-Rite for M0, M1, M2 measurement conditions would show a more usual L* range we habitually expect for matte papers (L*13 to L*20 depending on the paper/ink combination). I've already discussed this matter in one of my Red River paper reviews and it will be explored in further detail again in my forthcoming review of Red River Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth paper.

[rasworth]

Mark,
I read your Red River paper review, and believe I understand the point you're making wrt the difference in the quarter tone rendition between M2 and M3 profiles for RR Palo Duro Etching, and the example B&W image demonstrates it well.  However, I'm still bothered by the apparent misreporting of the black point that results from using the M3 mode.  More importantly, soft-proofing suffers even though the final print result may be superior.

So two questions:

1. Do your tests show that the M3 approach is inherently superior in terms of the final print rendering, or do they indicate that the BPC process is lacking?  I've never seen a "spec" on BPC, suspect that a more flexible approach to BPC might result in a similar contrast curve, i.e. one that more closely matches the M3 result.

2.  How do we get softproofing back?

I look forward to your RR PDFAS paper review.

Richard Southworth

[Doug Gray]

I know it's a year and half since we had this discussion, but with the passage of time comes additional information and insight that may help to elucidate previous perceptions. Having been through several profiling experiences that involve the creation of profiles using the M3 measurement condition (polarized light, done with a Barbieri spectrophotometer), I believe this is the explanation for the L*=2 maximum Black read from the profile using say ColorThink Pro as the profile analysis software. This does not mean the value of this Black would read as L*2 when reading the outcome on paper with an X-Rite spectrophotometer which is not M3 capable; results from the X-Rite for M0, M1, M2 measurement conditions would show a more usual L* range we habitually expect for matte papers (L*13 to L*20 depending on the paper/ink combination). I've already discussed this matter in one of my Red River paper reviews and it will be explored in further detail again in my forthcoming review of Red River Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth paper.

Exactly. Profiles are made from printed charts that have no knowledge of what spectro Mn is going to be used to make a profile so the L*13-20 is pretty likely.

The real question is this: What is the reflectance of the blackest black when viewed? And how does that change with the angle or type of light illuminating the paper?

Measuring this can be done by camera RAW capture and using dcraw or any other RAW decoder that outputs a linear image. The image values can be calibrated by placing a ColorChecker's neutral row, together with the paper being tested, along with a light trap. Light traps are made by drilling a small (1/2" or so)  hole in a large, solid box that is lined with black felt or painted with a matte black. It's a way of creating a near perfect "black" and one can pretty easily get down to an effective L* of 0.1 or better. This is used to establish, and subtract,  the camera glare which is almost always going to be larger than the light trap. The Colorchecker provides an easily established set of known reflectances. Together, these can be used to measure the level of reflected light under conditions other than the readily available M0,1,2 using a spectro which uses an annular, light at 45 degrees.

This can be used to determine the desaturation of colors and reduction of the media black point from light reflected off of anything glass framed and unframed glossy, or semi-gloss images when viewed in evenly distributed, ambient light.

[MHMG]

I know it's a year and half since we had this discussion, but with the passage of time comes additional information and insight that may help to elucidate previous perceptions. Having been through several profiling experiences that involve the creation of profiles using the M3 measurement condition (polarized light, done with a Barbieri spectrophotometer), I believe this is the explanation for the L*=2 maximum Black read from the profile using say ColorThink Pro as the profile analysis software. This does not mean the value of this Black would read as L*2 when reading the outcome on paper with an X-Rite spectrophotometer which is not M3 capable; results from the X-Rite for M0, M1, M2 measurement conditions would show a more usual L* range we habitually expect for matte papers (L*13 to L*20 depending on the paper/ink combination). I've already discussed this matter in one of my Red River paper reviews and it will be explored in further detail again in my forthcoming review of Red River Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth paper.

Perhaps it's now time for yet one more round of discussion in a new thread on M0, M1, or M2 profiling versus the M3 polarized light condition when measuring matte surface media. Personally, I've been there done that. M3 data sets for ICC profiling may help amateur printmakers get a first initial print they prefer by routinely lifting shadow details when they don't rely on softproofing. Shadow details can also be easily addressed in a proper softproofing environment. However, the M3 polarized light measurements screw the pooch for those of us who do rely on soft proofing. No free lunch, and again, no "extra goodness" I can't achieve in a final print using ICC profiles made with M0 or M2 instrumentation simply by following what my eyes and the M0 or M2 derived lab numbers tell me is happening in the soft proofed image on my calibrated monitor. We can ignore M1 for the purposes of this discussion. It's the one condition that truly is a wild card based solely on how much OBA is in the print media. M0 wins over M1 in almost all viewing conditions other than perhaps direct sunlight, but who looks at prints in direct sunlight?

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

Richard, Mark, Doug:

The story - at least the story that I have to tell based on the testing I've done - is kind of subtle and it requires a fair number of words, diagrams and illustrations, so since I've written-up pretty much everything I have to say about M3 versus the other Ms in my forthcoming review of Palo Duro Fine Art Smooth, let me for now just "forward reference" that article, not knowing exactly when Kevin will publish it; but I know they are working on converting it into LuLa-ese, so it probably won't be too long from now. As Rachel Maddow likes to say, "hold that thought" and let's revert to the discussion in a new thread dealing with the forthcoming article, where I hope to have provided some "meat" to chew on.

[Doug Gray]

Mark,

Re: M3, You might find this post by color scientist John Seymour, aka "John the Math Guy," interesting.

http://johnthemathguy.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-measurement-condition-is-your.html

The second point from the ISO 13655 quote is that M3 reduces dry-back. Measurements made directly after printing on a cold set press will not change as the ink dries. This is true,......

[Alan Goldhammer]

As Rachel Maddow likes to say, "hold that thought"

which really means you have to watch 55 minutes of her talking about next to nothing before all is revealed on the final five minutes of the show (I'm an MSNBC watcher but gave up on Ms. Maddow two years ago when it became apparent that this was the way her shows were constructed).

[MHMG]

Mark,

Re: M3, You might find this post by color scientist John Seymour, aka "John the Math Guy," interesting.

http://johnthemathguy.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-measurement-condition-is-your.html

The second point from the ISO 13655 quote is that M3 reduces dry-back. Measurements made directly after printing on a cold set press will not change as the ink dries. This is true,......

Thanks for the link. Some interesting remarks on M3 but even more ironic to me as I read the article was the M1 versus M0 discussion. Again, revisiting the M0,M1,M2, and M3 discussion undoubtedly belongs in another thread. So, I will close with just one remark. It's ironic that the more FWA/OBA fluorescence-inducing M1 condition is being phased into the graphic arts industry at a time when museums and galleries, indeed most home and office display environments are now moving to adopt energy efficient LED lighting that typically has little or no UV content!

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

Doug and Mark,

I had been aware of that very good article you referenced Doug, and on reviewing it just now thought to have a second look at M0 versus M1 using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler and Epson Glossy Photo Paper which is resplendent with FWAs. Please see the attached two screen grabs. First X-Rite's description of these conditions on the GUI itself. As usual for X-Rite, inadequate. They tell us that M1 is D50 but fail to tell us that UV is included, whereas they say this for M0. Those who don't know could be confused into thinking that M1 doesn't include it because it's not mentioned. Anyhow, moving beyond that, the other thing they don't tell you is that it doesn't matter which of those measurement conditions you select when measuring a patch in Measure Chart mode, because the spectro and software return all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement. This can also confuse people who don't know. Of course none of this confusion would need to occur were it not for the lack of a manual accompanying this kit. To date, as far as I know, neither X-Rite nor any third party have written a manual. Shame.

Turning to the results, as to be expected, John Seymour is correct that M0 and M1 have different sensitivity to FWA presence in the paper. This is evident from the bluer outcome in the b* channel comparing M1 with M0. Not to say, however, that M0 is insensitive to FWAs - it still shows up as -8.03, versus -10.72 for M1, while the M2 UV cut measurement indicates the paper is actually yellowish at b*1.92. You'd never know it looking at the stuff!

Anyhow, I agree with Mark HMG this is OT, but thought it useful just to round-off the discussion looking at this evidence, arising from thoughts rereading the Seymour piece. 

[Mark D Segal]

which really means you have to watch 55 minutes of her talking about next to nothing before all is revealed on the final five minutes of the show (I'm an MSNBC watcher but gave up on Ms. Maddow two years ago when it became apparent that this was the way her shows were constructed).

OK, shouldn't have mentioned that name - we can take this off-line Alan!  :-)  :-)

[MHMG]

Doug and Mark,

...Anyhow, moving beyond that, the other thing they don't tell you is that it doesn't matter which of those measurement conditions you select when measuring a patch in Measure Chart mode, because the spectro and software return all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement. 

Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "...all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement".

When making measurements in the strip reading mode, you have the choice of saving an MO reading only, or saving all three (M0, M1, and M2). If I understand it correctly, the i1Pro2 takes the M0 reading on the the first pass of the strip. To measure all three, a second pass is required that activates a UV led. The software then mathematically corrects/combines the two acquired spectra to derive the M1, and M2 conditions. Hence, the final saved M0, M1, and M2 spectral sets for papers that contain OBAs are definitely not the same, and you can also tell this is by selecting a media white patch of any paper that has any amount of OBAs and looking at the reported Lab values for all three conditions. b* will be highest (more yellow) with M2, lowest (more blue) for M1, and somewhere in between for M0. For media with no OBAs or other source of fluorescence the readings are indeed essentially the same.

I was all set to move entirely to the new M1 standard in a new extended Aardenburg testing protocol, and I will be reporting M1 for media whitepoint color along with M0, and M2 results in upcoming published reports. However, I concluded after evaluating a variety of different OBA content papers that M1 overstates the "bluishness" of most media with OBA content in the majority of indoor display conditions. Even when describing "Natural daylight" entering through windows as the lighting source, the UV content is typically attenuated enough by various painted surfaces, carpets, fabrics, etc.,  that the specified "D50" illuminant objective of a graphic arts viewing booth is not being met. Hence, M1 is assuming too much UV content to represent typical indoor display conditions. And the situation gets worse when framers start recommending conservation grade framing or galleries have already taken steps to cut UV right at the light source. Hence, in my opinion, MO readings still return the most suitable results for OBA-containing media that will be used to make prints and photographs and displayed indoors.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark D Segal]

Ok, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "...all three measurements at once and they are identical (i.e. the differences between M0, M1 and M2 are the same) regardless of which data parameter we select for making the measurement".

When making measurements in the strip reading mode, you have the choice of saving an MO reading only, or saving all three (M0, M1, and M2). If I understand it correctly, the i1Pro2 takes the M0 reading on the the first pass of the strip. To measure all three, a second pass is required that activates a UV led. The software then mathematically corrects/combines the two acquired spectra to derive the M1, and M2 conditions. Hence, the final saved M0, M1, and M2 spectral sets for papers that contain OBAs are definitely not the same, and you can also tell this is by selecting a media white patch of any paper that has any amount of OBAs and looking at the reported Lab values for all three conditions. b* will be highest (more yellow) with M2, lowest (more blue) for M1, and somewhere in between for M0. For media with no OBAs or other source of fluorescence the readings are indeed essentially the same.

.................
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

I think I wasn't complete enough in what I was describing. I was talking about Measure Chart in Spot Measurement Mode, which reads all three M conditions in one click on the patch - not scanning. And yes, as one would expect, the readings are different for each reported M version. Now, when you make that measurement, i1Profiler gives you a choice of three "Measurement Conditions" as I illustrated in my previous post. They are M0, M1 and M2. You can select any of three for reading the patch and they will return the same results; so for avoidance of doubt, an example: let us say you measured using M0 Measurement Condition and the value of b* is reported as -8, -11 and +2 for M0, M1 and M2 respectively; if you repeat that measurement using Measurement Condition M1 or M2, the reported b* values for M0, M1 and M2 will remain unchanged at -8, -11 and +2 respectively. So for sure the values of the 3 Ms differ, but that structure of readings turns out the same no matter which of the Measurement Conditions you select for reading the patch. Sound confusing? Thank X-Rite. :-) The important take-away in relation to the Seymour article is that between M0 and M1 there is a difference of negative b* as he says, but both show aggressive FWA content for a paper that is chock full of them, such as the Epson Glossy I used for the demo.

[gfsymon]

I have a Z3100 printer that is capable of very intense blacks on matte paper like Hahnemuehle Rag 308.

However it is very sensitive to handling and scratches- you see everything that has gone wrong...

How do the people here deal with that?

Same way as pre-digital.  Buy yourself some very fine watercolour brushes (down to single hair) a set of inks and work at the art of ‘spotting’.  Amusingly, I find that somehow the prints become less computerised, which is nice.